Ex Parte Huang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 9, 2012

10787597 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LUCAS K. HUANG
___________

Appeal 2010-005799
Application 10/787,597
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005799
Application 10/787,597

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lucas K. Huang (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the final rejection of claims 1-5, 8-17, 20-25, 27-30, 32-38, and 40-41.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is “a method and skills assessment tool for
automatically managing a testing session in a clinical skills testing center
that includes a plurality of assessment stations.” Spec. para. [011].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for managing a testing session
in a clinical skills testing center comprising a
plurality of assessment stations, wherein each of
the plurality of assessment stations includes an
input/output device and monitoring equipment, the
method comprising:
a) prior to the beginning of the testing
session, configuring the plurality of assessment
stations by associating each of the assessment
stations with a case type;
b) during the testing session, receiving
electronic identification of a student at one of a

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jun. 30, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 26, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 27, 2009).

Appeal 2010-005799
Application 10/787,597

3
plurality of assessment stations prior to the student
commencing an encounter at the one assessment
station;
c) in response to receiving the student’s
identification, automatically assigning the student
to the one assessment station for the encounter,
wherein the encounter corresponds with the case
type associated with the one assessment station;
d) prompting the student to begin the
encounter at the one assessment station via the
input/output device associated with the one
assessment station to record the encounter; and
e) in response to the student beginning the
encounter, automatically starting the monitoring
equipment associated with the one assessment
station;
f) utilizing the monitoring equipment to
time and record the encounter;
g) storing the recorded encounter in a
database, wherein the recorded encounter is
automatically associated with at least the testing
session and the student; and
h) repeating steps (b) through (g) for the
student at another of the plurality of assessment
stations to enable the student to perform another
encounter with a different case type.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hoehn-Saric
Bailey
US 5,915,973
US 6,739,877 B2
Jun. 29, 1999
May 25, 2004
The Examiner took official notice that “a standard patient is old and
well known to one skilled in the art, used by schools and hospitals to teach
students.” Ans. 11. [Hereinafter, Official Notice.]
Appeal 2010-005799
Application 10/787,597

4
The Burning
(Seinfeld),http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_(Seinfeld) (last visited
Nov. 16, 2009). [Hereinafter, The Burning.]
Simulated Patient, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_patient
(last visited Nov. 19, 2009). [Hereinafter, Simulated Patient.]
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1-5, 8-17, 20-25, 27-30, 32-38, and 40-41 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailey,
Hoehn-Saric, and Official Notice, evidenced by The Burning
and Simulated Patient.

ISSUE
The issue is whether claims 1-5, 8-17, 20-25, 27-30, 32-38, and 40-41
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are unpatentable over Bailey, Hoehn-
Saric, and Official Notice, supported by The Burning and Simulated Patient.
Specifically, the issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Bailey
implicitly teaches step b).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Bailey’s column 4, lines 58-64 states:
Worldwide access requires a high level of security.
Proprietary courseware as well as general
information may be distributed selectively. For
example, a medical device manufacturer may limit
distribution of new product courseware to
Appeal 2010-005799
Application 10/787,597

5
approved clinical evaluation facilities only.
Similarly, medical societies can limit distribution
of new courseware to active members/subscribers.

2. Bailey states: “Simulation Server Computer 116, drawing from
Knowledge Repository 216, delivers whatever data and programs
are needed to each of the workstations. What gets delivered to
each one of the workstations is completely dependent on whether
or not that workstation has a live participant, or virtual participant,
or multiple participants.” Col. 11, ll. 49-54.
3. Bailey’s column 12, lines 16-27 states:
In step 402, after all the required information has
been provided and the command to begin the
simulation has been given by the operator,
Simulation Server Computer 116 accesses the
appropriate pre-determined data for the selected
simulation from Knowledge Repository 216 and
notifies the various other computers controlling the
other workstations what programs to run, what
data they need, and where the data is located. The
various other computers then launch the
appropriate programs and acquire the data they
need from Knowledge Repository 216 in step 404.
The data that is required at each workstation is
determined at the beginning of the simulation.

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellant (see App. Br. 15-16 and Reply Br. 8-9 )
that the combination of Bailey and Hoehn-Saric does not teach step c)
recited in claim 1. The pertinent portion of claim 1 recites:
b) during the testing session, receiving
electronic identification of a student at one of a
Appeal 2010-005799
Application 10/787,597

6
plurality of assessment stations prior to the student
commencing an encounter at the one assessment
station;
c) in response to receiving the student’s
identification, automatically assigning the student
to the one assessment station for the encounter,
wherein the encounter corresponds with the case
type associated with the one assessment station;
(emphasis added).
To teach step c), the Examiner finds that “Bailey teaches of
automatically assigning the student to one assessment station for the
encounter by transferring the required software program to the student’s
station upon verification of the student’s identification” and cites column 11,
lines 49-51 to support this assertion. Ans. 20-21.
We find that this assertion is not supported by the cited teachings of
Bailey. Initially, we note that the Examiner is asserting that Bailey’s column
4, lines 58-64, which broadly describes selectively distributing the
courseware programs (FF 1), implicitly teaches that a student must logon to
a workstation to perform a simulation. See Ans. 20. Even assuming that this
assertion is correct, Bailey’s column 11, ll. 49-54 does not teach that the
transferring of the required software program (i.e. the Examiner’s alleged
automatic assignment) occurs in response to the receiving of the login or
verification. Column 11, ll. 49-54 merely describes that data and programs
are drawn to each workstation as needed from the Knowledge Repository by
the Simulation Server Computer. FF 2. In fact, Bailey instead teaches that
the data and programs are delivered to the workstations after the operator
has entered all of the required information and given the command to begin
the simulation. FF 3. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
Appeal 2010-005799
Application 10/787,597

7
in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over the prior art. We note that the
Examiner does not rely upon Hoehn-Saric or Official Notice or provide any
other rationale to cure the deficiency of Bailey discussed above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5 and 8-12,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bailey, Hoehn-Saric, and Official Notice, evidenced by The Burning and
Simulated Patient is reversed. Independent claims 13, 25, 36, 37 and 38
recited similar limitations and were rejected using the same rationale (see
Ans. 3). For the same reason as discussed above, the rejection of claims 13,
25, 36, 37, and 38, and claims 14-17, 20-24, 27-30, 32-35, and 40-41,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bailey, Hoehn-Saric, and Official Notice, evidenced by The Burning and
Simulated Patient is reversed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-17, 20-25, 27-30,
32-38, and 40-41 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh